To war or not to war?

2013-08-30 00:00

A DILEMMA is by its very nature a choice between evils, and that is what now faces countries over the use of poison gas in Syria. All the options may be “on the table”, but none of them is good.

Nobody denies that poison gas was used in rebel-held parts of Damascus on August 21, not even the Syrian government. Medecins Sans Frontieres says that 3 600 patients with symptoms of poisoning were treated at three hospitals it supports in Damascus after the attack, and that at least 355 of them died. The real total may be as high as 1 000 dead. That’s a whole week’s normal death toll in the Syrian civil war in just one day.

After that, however, we run out of facts. The rebels claim that the Baathist regime was responsible, while the Syrian government says that the rebels did it themselves, in the hope of triggering foreign military intervention.

Sending United Nations inspectors will not settle that argument: if nerve gas was actually used, it must have come from government stocks, but that doesn’t mean that the regime did it.

Everybody knows that the Syrian military has stocks of poison gas, but what’s happening in Syria is a civil war. The rebels have not overrun any of the known storage sites for Syrian chemical weapons, but they could have secret supporters inside those sites who smuggled some out to them. If you apply the old test of “who benefits?”, the rebels, who are currently losing ground, have a strong incentive to get the Assad regime blamed for using illegal weapons. If that gets the United States and other Western powers to impose a no-fly zone, or bomb the regime’s military bases, it helps the rebel cause. So maybe they acted to provide the necessary “evidence”. Some of them are certainly ruthless enough.

It’s easier to imagine the regime using chemical weapons. It’s just as ruthless, and it actually owns them. But it is manifestly not to its advantage to do so. President Bashar al-Assad’s troops are winning the war without them, and the last thing he needs is foreign military intervention. Using chemical weapons could lead to just such an outcome, and it would be exceptionally stupid for the regime to do so. On the other hand, armies and regimes have done exceptionally stupid things in the past, particularly when they are isolated and under great pressure. The emerging consensus among Western governments, at any rate, is that Assad was responsible. So what to do about it?

France has already called for the use of force, and the United States and Britain seem to be teetering on the brink. After a 40-minute phone call last Saturday, U.S. President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron agreed that “a significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response”. But that is about the least they could say, in the circumstances.

Earlier in the week, Obama warned publicly that people who “call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, get us mired in very difficult situations, [and] can ... actually breed more resentment in the region.”

U.S. military intervention is unlikely to lead to the outcome the U.S. foreign policy really desires: the preservation of Syria’s existing secular state, with a change of leadership at the top. If Assad is overthrown, he’ll probably pull the whole edifice down with him. If the rebels win, it’s almost certainly the Islamist radicals who will take over. So if a military intervention is practically bound to end in tears, then why not just skip it?

Because chemical weapons are classed as “weapons of mass destruction”, and there is an international treaty banning their use. If you let Assad get away with this, goes the argument, he will have breached an important international taboo on the use of WMD. Well, not really.

Biological weapons (“germ warfare”) are truly horrifying weapons of mass destruction, banned by treaty, and nobody has ever used them. Nuclear weapons can kill by the billions; they have never been banned, but they haven’t been used in war for 68 years now. Poison gas, however, is not really a weapon of mass destruction at all.

When gas was used in World War 2, it was always about capturing the next line of trenches. After that war it was banned, but it has been used a few times since: Italy used gas in Ethiopia in 1935, Japan used it against China in 1938, Yemen used it against rebels in the sixties, and Iraq used it against Iran and Kurdish rebels in the eighties. In no case did the casualties reach “mass destruction” levels. Napalm, fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs are just as nasty as poison gas, and legal.

The ban on poison gas is a valuable deterrent, but it has survived previous breaches, and preventing this one is not worth a war. Especially if it is, from the point of view of the potential interveners, an unwinnable war.

• Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.